Ebook piracy is a hot topic and a poll has been suggested, so here it is. You can select multiple options as you see fits the situation.

This ought to be good... :popcorn:

The questions are poorly worded. A "checkbox" poll needs to have clear "I agree" answers; this poll does not.

Well, the problem is that these are all misleading questions, not really a poll that will reflect what people think about ebook piracy (and what constitutes it).

2-3 don't actually have anything to do with piracy except as a way of mispresenting demographics and the 4th is ultra-misleading in that - that's the way it is NOW. Strangers do dictate an author's wage, by voting with their pocketbooks on if they should or should not buy a book.

Although I think that the question is supposed to suggest a 'pay what you think this book is worth' method? Which, personally, is one that always strikes me as particularly bad.

I think the real questions center around:

1. If people believe format-shifting of ebooks is piracy or not.

2. What to do if there is no authorized electronic copy.

3. The 'is there a lost sale if I'd never have bought it to begin with' theory.

<snicker> I love question 4. I worked for the same company for 38 years, and strangers ALWAYS decided my wages. I expect most folks could say the same.

Do some of the Qs need clarification?

Q1 - don't most of us take ebooks for free (from here if nowhere else)?

Q4 - Authors get 'wages'? (In the UK, wages are payments per hour worked, that are usually paid to an employee once a week. They're generally decided by the employer (and union if relevant).)

I don't like any of the options.

I don't see the point of the last one. It's a truism for most authors. Should strangers dictate author's wages? Most of the people who buy your books will be strangers, so the point is beyond debate.

I have better questions:
If a title is not available to buy in electronic form, and you download it; is it stealing? Would your position change if you own a paper copy?

What if the title is not available in any form (paper or electronic)? Is it still stealing? If so, how would you propose that it be paid for?

My answer to all questions is "it depends". I thinkt it is strange if people can answer them. Are they formulated from an libertarian viewpoint? It occured to me that I might have been debating libertarians here without knowing it and since that is usually meaningless I always want to know in advance if this is the case so I do not have to participate in the debate.

I'd love to take the poll but I don't understand the choices. If you could reword them into complete sentences (questions), it might help.

I think these are what's called "leading questions". You're not supposed to answer them, you're supposed to read the poll and have a mighty sense of righteous indignation that anyone would consider depriving the poor authors of their 'wages' ;-)

This poll makes absolutely no sense to me.

Heres my poll ;)
This is this the worst poll ever? -click here 0
This is the second worst poll ever - click here 0


I think this poll represents a fair choice of opinions :D

I'll answer the third item: I do a lot of work for free, with no expectation of compensation. For example, right now I'm running a web-based shop selling t-shirts and other swag for one of my favorite authors, Steven Brust, who's having some financial troubles. All proceeds go to him-- I don't take a penny, even though the designs are mine and I've spent many hours of work on them. The shop has been up for 3 weeks and is doing fairly well -- he'll get a nice check after the holidays. (See the shop at http://www.cafepress.com/dragaera -- international customers welcome!)

Mr. Brust has been kind enough to send me several autographed books as a thank you for this work, which I appreciate, but I didn't ask for this compensation and would have done the work regardless.

Now, should it be relevant that while I have Mr. Brust's work in paper (new editions when possible), there are no legal ebook editions, so I've obtained scanned versions of these books from "elsewhere"? My books are mostly packed in the basement, inaccessible in the small house I now occupy. These are books I like to re-read. Mr. Brust would like to make ebook editions available, but his publisher is Tor and the rights are in question. I don't have time to scan and proof these books myself-- I'm spending all my "extra time" running this web shop.

Anyone want to judge my morality?

This has to be the most confusing poll ever posted on the internet...ever.

Find out who has the rights to the books, Brust or Tor, and ask them whether the books were authorized to be scanned, and free copies given out. And you'll have your answer.

If I write a new novel, and I sign the rights over to a publisher who decides they will not authorize e-book copies, even I have no right to give you a copy. No one does, except the rights owner. If I retained those rights, I can give you an e-book without hesitation, whether the publisher likes it or not.

Whether you work for someone for pay, or gratis, they are not allowed to pay you or give you something which is not legally theirs to give.

Hum Steve, isn't your answer more legal-oriented than dealing with morality as in how the question has been asked ?

Find out who has the rights to the books, Brust or Tor, and ask them whether the books were authorized to be scanned, and free copies given out. And you'll have your answer.

But that's a legal assessment, not a moral one.

Morally, there's nothing wrong with what nekokami did.
Mr Brust is lucky to have the support of friends like that :thumbsup:

When I was in college, one of my professors constructed tests with questions that most of the students misinterpreted. My solution was to rewrite the question as I thought he meant to ask it and answer that question instead. So using that method for the poll questions:

1a. Do you agree that it is OK to take eBooks without paying for them? (My answer: no)
1b. If you agree with 1a, do you work for a living? (My answer: doesn't apply to me)
2a. Do you work for a living? (My answer: yes)
2b. If you do work for a living, do you agree that your work is worth what you are paid for it? (My answer: yes)
3. Would you work for free if you were not going to be paid? (My answer: It depends on the nature of the work -- I volunteer at church and am not paid for that. I invest a lot of time and money in a private school started by my family and am not monetarily compensated for that work. I do work at a computer company where I am paid, and if they didn't pay me, I would have to work somewhere else where I would be paid. I have to have some income to pay the bills.)
4. Should an author be able to withhold his work if he doesn't like the price he is being paid? (My answer: yes)

In my opinion, it is not right to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works without the copyright holder's (or their legal representatives') permission, except for "fair use". I disagree with DCMA and similar laws that attempt to narrow "fair use" to exclude format transformations. I also disagree with the extension of copyright protections beyond a few decades. I acknowledge that it may be "moral", in my view, to violate laws that I don't agree with, but I must accept the consequences of my actions under those "immoral" laws. (That is my definition of "civil disobedience").

Gold star for kkingdon.

Hum Steve, isn't your answer more legal-oriented than dealing with morality as in how the question has been asked ?

Okay: Neko is morally good for working for someone for free. No question.

However, she is morally... not good... for taking files that may be illegally obtained. Here, there's a question... since Neko apparently doesn't know whether the e-book files are, in fact, legal or not. If she found out that they were not legal (i.e., given to her without proper authorization), she should delete them.

(This is one of those "buying a stolen car" problems: You are not wrong to buy a car you do not know is stolen, but you are wrong if you find out it was stolen and do not report it to the authorities and turn in the car. Even though you will likely lose your money, making it a lose-lose situation. That's why it's always safer to buy from a reputable dealer... but anyway.)

Speaking to the technical detail of the poll, and setting the actual questions aside for a moment, the complication I see here is that the individual answers won't mean anything individually, only as they relate to the answers to the other questions -- kkingdon touched on this already, but I'll play the pedant for a moment. :grin:

For example, if I'm interpreting the choices correctly, we're not interested only in if a person takes books (that aren't freely offered by those with rights to do so) without paying for them, nor are we only interested in whether a person works for a living, but rather how those two points intersect.

That sort of intersection is really tough to set up in an informal poll like this though. :shrug:

1a. Do you agree that it is OK to take eBooks without paying for them? (My answer: no)

I think there's another shading here. One is "do you think it's okay," but then there's "do you do it," a separate issue. Is it right to hang up on a telemarketer? Well, it's probably not polite, but I still do it. There may even be a third level, "does it matter". If I don't stop at a stop sign, it's not right. But if it's 2am and I can clearly see a quarter mile in each direction down the road I'm turning onto, am I irreparably damaging the body politic if I don't come to a full stop?

Meh! Nonsensical poll. Please reformat into English!

So Jon, do you walk or take a lunch? :D

(It makes as much sense as the poll questions.)

Most authors have a very rough time of it and make very little income for a lot of hard work. I see no justifiable moral reason for taking their work without paying for it, most get little enough as it is.

I had an extended email conversation with Steve Brust's last P.A. a while back on the issue of ebooks. Brust doesn't know who has the rights. His P.A. thinks he holds the digital rights to his work, but she's not sure. His agent is slow to respond to questions like this, and much as I love Brust's writing style, I think the fact that he's over $100k in hock to the IRS attests to his organizational skills (or lack thereof). It would appear that he's operating under a "don't ask, don't tell" policy with regard to ebooks at the moment. He is aware that there are people who have scanned/swapped copies of his books. He is also aware that when he recently asked for a spot of legal/financial advice (and nothing more than advice), his enthusiastic fans set up a legal defense fund effort for him and money started pouring in, often with notes attached saying things like "I could only afford to buy your books used before, so now I'm paying you back" or "I have ebooks, which I couldn't pay you for, because there are no ebooks available legally, so I wanted to do my part to support you." Examples here: http://skzbrust.livejournal.com/68156.html

I make my living generating IP (mostly code, some writing of various sorts, one published non-fiction book so far). If I had to choose between a strictly legal business relationship with my readers and the kind of support Brust is getting in his hour of need, I know which one I'd pick. And I suspect I know which one he'd pick, as well.

Argue the legalities all you like. I feel good about being part of an author support effort that's doing more direct good than the pittance he'd probably get from legal ebook sales anyway. The CafePress shop has generated just over $100 in profit over the past three weeks, completely leaving aside the straight donations he's received. How much would he have gotten in ebook royalties this year? Plus, every shirt, mug, button, etc. has a copyright attribution letting everyone who sees it know where to find more of the same-- i.e. more books by Brust.

All I'm saying is that it's easy to forget that there are real human beings at both ends of this "legal transaction." I think the system works best when we all try to remember that, rather than demonizing faceless tight-fisted content monopolists or evil piratical thieves.

All I'm saying is that it's easy to forget that there are real human beings at both ends of this "legal transaction." I think the system works best when we all try to remember that, rather than demonizing faceless tight-fisted content monopolists or evil piratical thieves.

Thanks for this. It should be required reading for anyone entering a copyright or DRM-related thread.

This has to be the most confusing poll ever posted on the internet...ever.

I suspect it was an intention of the creator :)

I had an extended email conversation with Steve Brust's last P.A. a while back on the issue of ebooks. Brust doesn't know who has the rights. His P.A. thinks he holds the digital rights to his work, but she's not sure...

Not much you can say about that, other than the fact that somebody ought to be able to find out who has the rights... in terms of Brust's income-making potential, it could be highly significant, and worth establishing one way or the other (which should be his P.A.'s job, I'd guess).

I am not questioning whether your charity is deserved or misplaced, Neko. I am simply endorsing the idea that people shouldn't get ripped off by others. (It seems like about the only thing I've been saying for the past week!) Hopefully Brust's lack of info on his e-book rights isn't causing him to be ripped off. Hopefully whoever does have the rights isn't being ripped off.

Remember, if it turns out that his publisher has the rights, and that publisher finds out that Brust's books are being illegally disseminated as e-books (by Brust or anyone else), that could be considered a reason to cancel his publishing contract... which would really be ripping Brust off.

Remember, if it turns out that his publisher has the rights, and that publisher finds out that Brust's books are being illegally disseminated as e-books (by Brust or anyone else), that could be considered a reason to cancel his publishing contract... which would really be ripping Brust off.

This doesn't make sense to me. Yes, it could be a reason for canceling the publishing contract if Brust himself was doing it, but I don't see how a publisher could use the actions of a 3rd party to break Brust's contract.

This doesn't make sense to me. Yes, it could be a reason for canceling the publishing contract if Brust himself was doing it, but I don't see how a publisher could use the actions of a 3rd party to break Brust's contract.

Depending on the contract, any change in the saleability of a product, whether it was created by Brust or not, could be considered reason to break a contract. If the publisher suspects that Brust's actions (or inaction) caused a "breach of security" related to the book, the publisher could exercise whatever loopholes they likely built into the contract to sever the connection.

Mind you, that's an extreme case... but it is a possibility.

Contract royalties and renewals can also be contingent upon sales, and if illegal e-books are perceived to be hurting sales, a contract can simply not be renewed due to lack of profitability for the publisher.

Of course, contracts aren't always this mercenary... but it's not unheard of.

So Jon, do you walk or take a lunch? :D

(It makes as much sense as the poll questions.)
yes I walk. And in the summer I sometimes do take lunch.

1- I doubt Brust's publisher is interested in severing his contract. His last book made a bestseller list. He's still actively producing. He's making them money.

2 - He's not giving away ebooks. He's not encouraging his fans to give away ebooks. He apparently would like for there to be legal ebooks available but has no idea how to go about it, and his agent (for reasons I won't go into) hasn't weighed in on this issue. But I think it highly unlikely that anyone will be able to support a claim that ebooks have negatively impacted his sales.

My point in bringing this up was simply to demonstrate that the issue of ebook filesharing is not black and white, though it can be tempting to polarize arguments.

I believe that ebooks have real value. Their value is equal to the content of the book, plus the convenience factors associated with portability, searchability, etc., possibly minus the inconvenience of proprietary formats and/or DRM. I believe that authors should be compensated for the value of the content, and publishers should be compensated for the value of editing, marketing, and production. I honestly think most book fans feel that way. And if many people feel that the incremental value of an ebook compared to a pbook of the same content is not very large, and may even be negative if the ebook is locked down too tightly, that's not the same at all as saying the ebook has no value.

Steve, for your books in particular, which are not available in paper, there is no competing value, and no lessening of value due to poor formats or DRM. I wouldn't even consider downloading an illegal copy of one of your books. And I think the vast majority of readers feel the same way. I think you can afford to ignore the wackos who are talking about the inevitable doom of the ebook publishing industry. They aren't talking about you. Your books are reasonably priced and formatted for the convenience of your customers. And I don't think you need to defend the practices of publishers who can't bring themselves to trust their customers. They will eventually figure out how to get along in the electronic market, or they'll fold and other publishers who can figure it out (like Baen) will take over. And eventually no one will need to talk about the legality or morality of format shifting, because all the books still covered by copyright will have been available as flexible format ebooks from the time we wanted to purchase them in the first place.

(Ok, and there will be a chicken in every pot, and the stars will shine and the birds will sing... accuse me of irrational optimism if you will, but long term, I think this is how things will go. I just expect a few bumps on the road getting there.)

Yes, it would be nice if that's the way things worked out. (I'll take the chicken, too!) And I think the developments in digital music are finally beginning to show a way for everyone else that works.

However, even among people on this forum who buy e-books, there still seems to be an opinion among many that an e-book is essentially worthless, specifically because of the extremely low (virtually zero) cost of producing them, the essentially "invisible" nature of an electronic file, and despite what work the author put into writing it.

This idea disturbs me greatly, more than any other idea presented here. The opinion that an e-book is, for all intents and purposes, "insubstantial," threatens to lessen the value of e-books in any form or concept, and that will only hurt the market and its potential over time. I believe the value of e-books to disseminate information farther, faster, cheaper, at less environmental impact and beyond physical boundaries, is great. Applying to them a value of zero will only hurt their ability to be recognized as legitimate.

This idea disturbs me greatly, more than any other idea presented here. The opinion that an e-book is, for all intents and purposes, "insubstantial," threatens to lessen the value of e-books in any form or concept,

Why? As I see it you pay for being able to and having the right to read the book and the actual medium is nearly worthless if it is in electronic form or is a paperback.

Why? As I see it you pay for being able to and having the ritht to read the book and the actual medium is nearly worthless if it is in electronic form or is a paperback.

But it's been clear in the past few days that not everyone shares that viewpoint. Many posters here seem to equate "e-books" with "free content," and seem to think that's morally okay, apparently, because it is so easy to get them from illegal sites and not get caught.

(Admittedly, some of them had more questionable morals than that, suggesting that if they had paid for and obtained a hardback book, they'd feel justified in taking a paperback for free later. You never can tell.)

Most people will commit a minor crime if they think they will get away with it.

Speeding!
wrong? of course. does almost everyone do it? yes

Lending someone a tape/dvd or a tv program their friend missed!
Wrong?of course. does everyone do it? yes

making a mix CD form your favourite album tracks!
Wrong? of course. Does everyone do it? yes

Its all about drawing a line... problem is its a giant sized football pitch wide fuzzy grey line.

downloading an Ebook thats not available commercially if you owned the paperback?

downloading an Ebook that wasnt available commercially if you didnt own a 'hard' copy?

downloading an Ebook that is commercially available if you didnt own a 'hard' copy?

Ive done some of all the things listed above... Heres my Poll:-

Can anyone honestly say they have never done ANY of the things listed in this post?

Yes

or

No

Can anyone honestly say they have never done ANY of the things listed in this post?

Yes

or

No

Are you including e-books that are in public domain? If so: Yes.

If you are only referring to e-books that are illegally obtained and offered for free: No.

My point is, Steve, I think most people here (I would even go so far as to say "the vast majority") do think that ebooks have intrinsic value. Yes, there are those who feel that if they already own the content legitimately in a paper form, they have few if any reservations about acquiring a scanned copy from elsewhere. But these are people who still feel it is important to compensate the author. After all, they bought the book in the first place. And it's a problem of the transition from paper to digital, not a permanent problem.

The opinion I don't care for much is the one that says "piracy is rampant, you can't stop it, nor should you-- content should just be free now that it costs nearly nothing to make copies." But I think that's a very minority opinion, here and elsewhere. Most people are mature enough understand that even if copies are nearly free to make, original content creation (and editing, formatting, marketing, etc.) is not, and needs to be compensated. Some of us worry about how this is going to happen, so we toss around ideas like embedded advertising, social DRM, etc. But I think taking a few of the worst extremist comments in this forum and extrapolating a widespread disrespect for authorship is probably borrowing anxiety unnecessarily. I just hate to see you stressing out over what I think is a very minority opinion.

I just hate to see you stressing out over what I think is a very minority opinion.

You know, you're right: For whatever reason, I have been stressing out over this, letting others push my buttons, and it probably is unnecessary. I can't even say why I was so stressed over it, other than the fact that I suppose I just couldn't understand how some people in these threads could possibly feel the way they do.

Anyway, today I'm on a much more even keel than I was a few days ago (thank goodness... I was about ready to throw out all my Karma and start from zero!). And I do feel bad about about flying off the handle at some of the people here. Maybe not every single one of them... but anyway...

It just goes to show how touchy a subject this can be, I guess, made worse by the fact that it's so vaguely defined, applied and enforced.

nekokami

Well said in the last two posts.

I, myself, believe that ebook has as much value as a paper back book as long as it is not locked down. Definitely, the author should be compensated.

I have a dilemma now.

I would like to read The Urth? I, the New Sun 5 book series.
I wanted to buy them ....cannot. Ebooks do not exist.
I have the first volume (2 books in one volume) in the series. I bought it 1 years ago.

On the darknet I could download all of them.

What shell I do?

Reading a paper book - out of question.

So, there are 2 ways as far as I can see.

1. Forget about it for a few years and hope that one day the publishers will have a mercy and publish ebooks or maybe they will not? or maybe when they do it the writer will no longer be alive? In this case there is a chance that the writer will never see my money...

2. I could buy the rest of the series in paper back editions. Then download ebooks from darknet. Edit them accordingly and read them. In this case, writer will be compensated for his work, because I will buy 2 more books while the writer is alive, not in some unpredictable future. (In this case the publishers will get my money too!)

What should I do?

Theft = Speeding? Get real.

Lending someone a tape/dvd or a tv program their friend missed!
Wrong?of course. does everyone do it? yes

making a mix CD form your favourite album tracks!
Wrong? of course. Does everyone do it? yes

There is nothing "of course" about these being wrong. Legally it seems to depend on where you live if it is legal or not. And if it is legal I do not see how it can be obvious that it is morally wrong.

eBooks, unlike pBooks, could be made unique for every download (e.g. subtle changes in punctuation, or certain words).
Unlike music downloads, such alterations in eBooks needn't detract from the enjoyment of the product.
If an illicit eBook turned up on the net, it could be traced back to the original purchaser. They could be asked why it happened, or blacklisted as a future customer; or investigated more thoroughly for other possible infringements.
This wouldn't stop piracy, but it might be a deterrant as each book would need to be 'cracked' separately - unlike a universal crack for a DRM implementation. The work involved would probably be more trouble than it's worth to a lot of 'pirates'.
Just an idea - a dumb one probably - but an idea nonetheless :).

Just an idea - a dumb one probably - but an idea nonetheless :).

Okay, just to establish that I'm not just challenging everything:

Although I wouldn't go so far as to change the text of a book for every downloader... if the intent is to make each e-book unique, you can work out a way to embed the purchaser's name in the book, say, in the dedication section (Thank you for buying this book, Sparrow!).

You'd need a server capable of generating the e-book on the fly once purchase was made, but that's very do-able.

Although I wouldn't go so far as to change the text of a book for every downloader... if the intent is to make each e-book unique, you can work out a way to embed the purchaser's name in the book, say, in the dedication section (Thank you for buying this book, Sparrow!).


I think that might be a bit obvious and easy to molest.
The way I thought it might be done is:
a) produce your text
b) select maybe a hundred candidate punctuations/words, throughtout the text, for random change (e.g. comma to semi-colon, one verb for another etc.) and supply a list of alternates
c) a randomiser utility could apply the random change to each download
d) log the 'signature' for that download against the purchaser's record
e) record the signature/customer on a centralised cross-publisher database, which can record whatever infringements are noted - the seriousness of a purchaser's infringements can determine the resultant action.

It seems strange to suggest 'mutilating' the text - but it need only be subtle.
Comparing two seperate editions of any classic text would show plenty of such examples - so there is nothing sacrosanct about even those books.

If someone tried to 'crack' it they'd have to find the candidates within the text, or make loads of changes to obliterate them. Either that or buy more copies to run a comparison :-)

b) select maybe a hundred candidate punctuations/words, throughtout the text, for random change (e.g. comma to semi-colon, one verb for another etc.) and supply a list of alternates

That can all-too-easily change the meaning of sentences, paragraphs, character motivations, entire storylines. Talk to some of the people in this forum, and they can tell you about a badly-done OCR job on one book or another that has done exactly that.

That's why I wouldn't want to change a single character of text in a book, especially one selected at random.

That can all-too-easily change the meaning of sentences, paragraphs, character motivations, entire storylines. Talk to some of the people in this forum, and they can tell you about a badly-done OCR job on one book or another that has done exactly that.

I've been proofing a classic text recently. I was surprised to discover how many differences there are between editions. One version would have something like:
"I agreed to the idea - but not willingly."
Another might have:
"I agreed to the idea; but not willingly."
Who knows which was 'right' (even a first edition might have a misprint)?

For anti-pirating purposes, the author could have selected '-' as a signature candidate with ';' as an alternate to be used at random (doesn't significantly alter the sense as far as I can see.)
This would just be one of the hundred or so signature indicators throughout the text.

Most people will commit a minor crime if they think they will get away with it.

Speeding!
wrong? of course. does almost everyone do it? yes

'Wrong' for this one depends on the particular speed limit involved. Some speed limits are set based on safety issues. These are generally worked out either by traffic engineers based on the particular road or by broad consensus (e.g. lower speed limits on residential streets). Others are purely political (remember the 55MPH limit?) and may well make no sense whatsoever in some places.

Was I 'wrong' to speed on a freeway in the middle of nowhere in Arizona (back in the 80s)? The next exit was 40 miles away, the next turn in the road was 20 miles away, and there was almost no traffic. The speed limit was 55, I was going about 85. The state trooper passed me like I was standing still, and gave me a cheery wave...

Lending someone a tape/dvd or a tv program their friend missed!
Wrong?of course. does everyone do it? yes

Not wrong according to US understanding of fair use. If I lend them the tape I made, and they give it back when they are done we're squarely in fair use territory. Questions arise when they copy it, but even there some scenarios are considered OK.


making a mix CD form your favourite album tracks!
Wrong? of course. Does everyone do it? yes

Once again, squarely in fair use territory, when the mix CD is for my own use and is made from albums I have purchased. 'Wrong' arises only when either the albums/tracks weren't legally purchased in the first place, or when I give (note: not loan!) the mix CD to someone else.


Its all about drawing a line... problem is its a giant sized football pitch wide fuzzy grey line.

downloading an Ebook thats not available commercially if you owned the paperback?

downloading an Ebook that wasnt available commercially if you didnt own a 'hard' copy?

downloading an Ebook that is commercially available if you didnt own a 'hard' copy?

Ive done some of all the things listed above... Heres my Poll:-

Can anyone honestly say they have never done ANY of the things listed in this post?

Yes

or

No

My personal line is at the point where commercial availability goes away. I buy content new when possible. I have no problem with format shifting for my own use. That seems both reasonable and morally OK to me, and it's probably even OK on the legal front as well (in the US, unless and until the mouse gets the laws changed). I'm willing to loan books/cds/bits to friends who can be trusted to return them (that means 'no fair keeping a copy'!).

When it comes to giving away a copy of something, well... I do make copies of albums for family members, but only of albums that are completely out of print (by which I mean 'not available new in any format'). I want the artists and/or rights-holders to be compensated -- that's how I get more content that I want.

I also re-purchase content in alternate form rather than convert (when available). My time is worth more than the extra cost.

Your mileage may vary...

Xenophon

[QUOTE=stustaff;127037]Lending someone a tape/dvd or a tv program their friend missed!
Wrong?of course. does everyone do it? yes
If you own the tape or DVD and you loan said tape/DVD to a friend to watch and you do not have a copy, you can do it legally. Now if you've downloaded the TV show and put it on tape/DVD, then you have broken the law and loaning it or not you are still wrong.

No one is up to help me to solve my dilemma?

No one is up to help me to solve my dilemma?

Buy the paperbacks. If you must have them as e-books, you can scan and OCR them. Don't support illegal sites.

Astra, I think you know my opinion. If you own the book you can darknet the e-book. I also know Steve completely disagrees. Why not post a direct poll explaining all in a separate thread and see what how the members here balance out?

Buy the paperbacks. If you must have them as e-books, you can scan and OCR them. Don't support illegal sites.

It would take ages to scan a book that has 600 pages. I don't have any professional equipment for that, just PC scanner.

I think that might be a bit obvious and easy to molest.
The way I thought it might be done is:
a) produce your text
b) select maybe a hundred candidate punctuations/words, throughtout the text, for random change (e.g. comma to semi-colon, one verb for another etc.) and supply a list of alternates
c) a randomiser utility could apply the random change to each download
d) log the 'signature' for that download against the purchaser's record
e) record the signature/customer on a centralised cross-publisher database, which can record whatever infringements are noted - the seriousness of a purchaser's infringements can determine the resultant action.

It seems strange to suggest 'mutilating' the text - but it need only be subtle.
Comparing two seperate editions of any classic text would show plenty of such examples - so there is nothing sacrosanct about even those books.

If someone tried to 'crack' it they'd have to find the candidates within the text, or make loads of changes to obliterate them. Either that or buy more copies to run a comparison :-)

If it's not plain text you could watermark in a way that didn't affect the work at all. Unfortunately I still haven't heard a way of doing it that isn't easily cracked. To me, that would be ideal DRM. You can copy your book to as many devices as you like but if it ends up on the darknets it could be traced back to you.

I think putting the purchaser's name in the text (and metadata, for anything other than plain text) would cause honest people to think twice about who they "loan" the file to, and nothing will stop the dishonest people anyway. But again, there's no challenge to cracking such a file, which I think is what the darknet runs on. People post and share content that's considered "challenging" in some way. You don't see a lot of Baen titles there. So I think this method would cut down on massive piracy as well. I don't think what's left is worth worrying about.

But that's just my opinion.

astra, I'm with PenForHire on this one, but I can respect Steve's point of view, too. I wish there were a way to have a sharing site that would ask for at least a promise by the participants that they own works in paper before downloading. It makes sense to me that people ought to be able to share the work of scanning paper books with others who own the same paper book, particularly those that aren't yet available in ebook versions and especially those that are out of print.

In my case, Steve Jordan's solution is as illegal as dowloading from darknet.
Btw., I have started a poll :)

I won't pirate ebooks but I won't pay $15 for one either. Rather wait 6 months or so and buy the hard cover for half that price or less, I don't mind waiting.

In my case, Steve Jordan's solution is as illegal as dowloading from darknet.

Wait... did I miss something? If you buy the books, scanning them and OCR'ing them for yourself is covered by "fair use." Okay, it's a lot of pages, but still okay to do. Or did I misunderstand something here?

If astra lives in the UK, scanning a whole book would be illegal.

Ah. Right.

Wait... did I miss something? If you buy the books, scanning them and OCR'ing them for yourself is covered by "fair use." Okay, it's a lot of pages, but still okay to do. Or did I misunderstand something here?

nekokami is correct.

Harry_T reiterated it 100 times on this forum :) It is illegal to format shift, like scanning your own book or ripping your own CD into mp3 album :)

The opinion I don't care for much is the one that says "piracy is rampant, you can't stop it, nor should you-- content should just be free now that it costs nearly nothing to make copies." But I think that's a very minority opinion, here and elsewhere. Most people are mature enough understand that even if copies are nearly free to make, original content creation (and editing, formatting, marketing, etc.) is not, and needs to be compensated. Some of us worry about how this is going to happen, so we toss around ideas like embedded advertising, social DRM, etc.

I am not sure whether I resemble this remark or not ;-) In case anyone thinks I do, I'd like to beat the poor horse a little longer. :deadhorse:

I have nothing but the greatest respect for good authors, and I want them to be able to succeed. In fact, I would be in favor of giving them all lots of money out of the public coffers just to ensure that they can keep writing. I think it would be a much better way to spend my tax dollars than many other things!

But I think we're facing a transition in the way the market works. Any disruptive technology (automobiles, the Internet) brings with it challenges for certain ways of doing business (making goods for horse-drawn conveyances, selling copies of content). This is the "piracy is rampant, you can't stop it" part.

I also think that we need to embrace change, especially when it's inevitable, and recognize the good things that come from it (fast and cheap transportation, the end of scarcity of knowledge). This is the "content should just be free now that it costs nearly nothing to make copies" part.

But I still think that authors need to be compensated for creating the original work. I think it's a challenge to do so in an effective manner. I also recognize that it's a minority opinion, but it's not one I hold because I am evil, or dishonest, or because I want to cause people stress.

In fact, I think a "widespread disrespect for authorship" is the last thing you'll find on an ebook forum. I don't think I've ever seen any disrespect for authorship here - making it a very minority opinion indeed ;-)



But I think taking a few of the worst extremist comments in this forum and extrapolating a widespread disrespect for authorship is probably borrowing anxiety unnecessarily. I just hate to see you stressing out over what I think is a very minority opinion.

I think stressing out about it is also a bad idea. No one who disagrees with you (at least, as far as I can tell) is doing so maliciously. It's difficult to feel that your beliefs are being challenged, and that there's a group of people who just doesn't believe what you feel to be self-evident. It's tough to even reach a common ground in that sort of situation (as I think we're seeing here).

One thing I found to be helpful in dealing with situations like this, is to try to dispassionately deconstruct your own beliefs, and the reasoning behind them. (:vulcan:) Try to build a formal proof from them. Then do the same for your opponents'. It will, at least, remove the personal sting from the whole thing. And you might be able to point to the exact place where you and your 'opponent' are out of step. It can help in reconciliation, or at least agreeing to disagree. :shrug:

Anyway, I'm sorry for any part I may have had in causing you stress! I like MobileRead to stay stress-free...

Harry_T reiterated it 100 times on this forum :) It is illegal to format shift, like scanning your own book or ripping your own CD into mp3 album :)

I know, I know... I just forgot where you were. :shrug:

I don´t understand the poll sentences ...

I don´t understand the poll sentences ...
Neither does anyone else. :blink: (except possibly the original poster...)

Xenophon

Well, my popcorn's finished, and this did turn out to be a very entertaining thread indeed!

Unfortunately, Jon and I (the original instigators of this thread) did two things wrong:

We should have been clearer and more careful in our poll wording; and
We should have made sure everyone could see our tongues planted firmly within our cheeks.

Heh...

This poll was supposed to be a moral test, seeking people who believed that they were justified in taking the fruits or other people's labors without paying for them... while they, themselves, worked at jobs that they would not do without the paycheck that came with it. As an aside, it sought to identify people who believed that they have the right to dictate to someone else how much their work is worth in the market.

As some of the other threads here have indicated, these concepts are viewed in radically different ways by many, and get even more convoluted in the details. Admittedly (and embarrassingly), I was not quite in my right mind when I came up with the idea of this poll in another thread, as I had been involved in an increasingly heated discussion debating the morals and ethics of online piracy... and finding myself surprised and frustrated at some of the things I was hearing. My poll idea was, therefore, an attempt to use irony to get others to see the error of their ways (and the superiority of mine. Told you I wasn't in my right mind).

Actually, I never expected Jon to make it its own thread. And once it was up, it merely provided a new branch of the same piracy argument (because it could hardly have been called a debate by that time) on this site.

However, I have to admit that, as tempers cooled, this thread has proven itself to have clarified many opinions and closed some open wounds (in fact, so has the original thread, thank goodness). Although even Jon and I have some different opinions regarding these issues, I'm sure he's as gratified as I am to see that, confusion aside, the spirit of honest debate and respect of opinions has (mostly) prevailed.

To those who have played along, you have my sincere kudos, apologies for any egos that have not yet recovered from their bruises, and congratulations for proving that this website is, in fact, a community worth reckoning with.

I'm glad I make e-books for you guys!

Boy. This thread stopped dead so fast, it left skid marks...

Maybe everyone just got bored and left.

All of the answers provided seem to be slanted. No Go. :)

I get it now.

However, even among people on this forum who buy e-books, there still seems to be an opinion among many that an e-book is essentially worthless, specifically because of the extremely low (virtually zero) cost of producing them, the essentially "invisible" nature of an electronic file, and despite what work the author put into writing it.

This idea disturbs me greatly, more than any other idea presented here. The opinion that an e-book is, for all intents and purposes, "insubstantial," threatens to lessen the value of e-books in any form or concept, and that will only hurt the market and its potential over time. I believe the value of e-books to disseminate information farther, faster, cheaper, at less environmental impact and beyond physical boundaries, is great. Applying to them a value of zero will only hurt their ability to be recognized as legitimate.

I don't think this is the argument that has been posted, at least not the one that I have posted. What I have said, a few times, is that e-books are similar to software, in that there are sunk costs (R&D in software, editing, etc. etc.) in e-books, and that this makes up most of the costs of publishing. Once you have the book, production costs are close to zero. When your marginal costs are close to zero, absurd profits are possible.

What bothers me, and seems to bother others, is that what we are seeing in many cases is NOT an attempt to sell ebooks at a fair price, but attempts to sell e-books at almost the same price as paper books, thereby reaping enormous profits. E-books have value, but that value depends on many factors. Is it DRMd? Well, that removes a customer's freedoms, and decreases value of the product. Can the e-book be resold? No? Again, reduction in value and loss of consumer rights. Is the book locked to a single format, and thereby a single reader? Yes? Decrease in value again.

What isn't a fair price at $19.99 may well be if the publisher lowers the price to $3.99.

Most of that I agree with, with just 2 caveats:

Although the low production costs of e-books (or software) may mean "absurd profits are possible," the fact is that really shouldn't concern the consumer... rather, whether or not the book or software has appropriate value to you is what's important. Worry about whether you will pay the asking price for software or an e-book, not how much the author's going to get at the end of the year.

And personally, I have never connected a book's worth to its resale value... it's a book, not a car. So I've never considered resale value contingent upon worth, nor decided not to buy a book because I wouldn't be able to resell it.

I don't think this is the argument that has been posted, at least not the one that I have posted.

I would say from the overwhelmig majority, I haven't seen this either, but it seems to be the "take away" that Steve comes up with in almost every case.

People (here anyway) WANT TO BUY eBooks from th authors they enjoy. There is little doubt about this.

What I have said, a few times, is that e-books are similar to software, in that there are sunk costs (R&D in software, editing, etc. etc.) in e-books, and that this makes up most of the costs of publishing. Once you have the book, production costs are close to zero. When your marginal costs are close to zero, absurd profits are possible.


As this is my business, software, I can tell you that it is more than merely similar. It is the same process, when taken for what it is. An eBook is a Software Product, Literature Sub-genre.

What happens when it becomes a software product? Its valuation is determined by the market by indicators for software products AS WELL AS literary ones. One of those factors is utility.

And if this product is produced and sold with no analog capabilities, attachments or media/medium? Automatic market value reduction. But I believe you make this point below...

What bothers me, and seems to bother others, is that what we are seeing in many cases is NOT an attempt to sell ebooks at a fair price, but attempts to sell e-books at almost the same price as paper books, thereby reaping enormous profits. E-books have value, but that value depends on many factors. Is it DRMd? Well, that removes a customer's freedoms, and decreases value of the product. Can the e-book be resold? No? Again, reduction in value and loss of consumer rights. Is the book locked to a single format, and thereby a single reader? Yes? Decrease in value again.

What isn't a fair price at $19.99 may well be if the publisher lowers the price to $3.99.

...and so you did. These are ALL valid considerations for a digital SOFTWARE product in a market where the consumer is quite saavy about these things.

I think $3.99 might be a bt on the low side, maybe, but its is a damned site more in line with the perceived value for what you "get" than $10 or $15.

I don't think that publishers OR authors really, truly "get" that an eBook is a software product. Look at what a typical $10 or $15 dollar piece of software "does" as opposed to a book, which for people in the eBook market is really a "one-shot" purchase as unlike music for example, most people don't read books cover to cover over and over again. They may refer to them from time to time, or re-read a really beloved book again, but honestly, "collecting eBooks" isn't like...at all having shelves and shelves of books to look at and walk by.

Hell, if they let the "fools" that wished to blow their own ink/toner and paper print out a copy of the thing if they wanted to, this ALONE would add so much more "perceived value" while costing nothing to the publisher (they already sold the book)...but even this obvious thing seems to escape them.

*shrug*

Although the low production costs of e-books (or software) may mean "absurd profits are possible," the fact is that really shouldn't concern the consumer...

But it does. Its really not a philosophical question. its a market one.


And personally, I have never connected a book's worth to its resale value... it's a book, not a car. So I've never considered resale value contingent upon worth, nor decided not to buy a book because I wouldn't be able to resell it.

Well no one can fault you for this, really. OTOH you really can't work up a good business model without considering that this is a very real factor for those that buy and trade books.

-K

... unlike music for example, most people don't read books cover to cover over and over again. They may refer to them from time to time, or re-read a really beloved book again, ...
Take a look in the poll (see my sig line). People in this forum DO re-read books, a lot.

Boy. This thread stopped dead so fast, it left skid marks...
I think some folks thought you took all the fun out of things with your gracious remarks. I actually thought that was a good conclusion to the thread. I don't know as there's anything new to be said.

Not that that has ever stopped the crowd before... :popcorn: ;)

Take a look in the poll (see my sig line). People in this forum DO re-read books, a lot.


...some built in ambiguity and skew on the positive side of the question.

I see this a lot in these polls...the questions are weirdly worded and have a lot of wiggle room :)

I guess it depends on the point you are trying to make. There is only one definite negative answer and the two answers with the largest amount of responses clearly could overlap a bit.

Most importantly tho, is we have a sample pool of lest than 100 people here :)

At any rate music has a few other advantages in its digital form over an ebook and is priced less.

Do with that what you will ;)

And personally, I have never connected a book's worth to its resale value... it's a book, not a car. So I've never considered resale value contingent upon worth, nor decided not to buy a book because I wouldn't be able to resell it.

And I've also rarely connected a book's value to its container. There are a few ebooks that I've paid the hardcover price just because I knew that the book would be great and I didn't want to wait to get the hardcover.

Yes, I would love to pay a lower price for ebooks just as one pays less for a paperback than for a hardcover. My justification for paying higher prices is that if I really want to save money then I can wait until the price comes down or hope the library gets a copy. It's actually easier for me to justify purchasing ebooks since they require no physical space to store.

I have so many legitimately acquired ebooks in my reading queue that the Darknet holds little attraction for me.

( Originally Posted by Steve Jordan:
Although the low production costs of e-books (or software) may mean "absurd profits are possible," the fact is that really shouldn't concern the consumer...)

But it does. Its really not a philosophical question. its a market one.

Do you actually decide on whether or not to buy software, or an e-book, based on whether the author's income is in the six figures? Or on whether the software or e-book is priced resonably to you? They are not the same thing.

I wouldn't buy a $15 e-book... because I believe $15 is too much for an e-book (or a paperback, for that matter), even if I really want to read it. The author's profit margins have absolutely no concern to me, any more than what car he drives or what color underwear he prefers.

Besides, the amount of the book doesn't directly indicate the author's profits, since you don't know his actual costs, whether he employs help (and at what salary), pays an agent, is putting his kids through college, etc. So all you can really do is guess about such things. I'm not going to make a decision based on a perception of someone's profits that I have no way of confirming... that would be silly.

Do you actually decide on whether or not to buy software, or an e-book, based on whether the author's income is in the six figures? Or on whether the software or e-book is priced resonably to you? They are not the same thing.

It is not a philosophical question :)

The rest of your comment (again) drifted into this. Talk about the business and some solutions geared toward that, because, quite honestly, no one is going to change philosophical points of view here...this is real clear to me now.

My concern is solutions that put money into author's pockets. I think a growing, health eBook market that appeals to eBook *buyers* can make that happen. All other discussion is really mental to me at this point here on mobileread and I'm really not interested in discussing people's "feelings" anymore.

Let's talk about the market landscape as it exists in 2007 and beyond and get guys like you paid.

To me, this is worth discussion.

...some built in ambiguity and skew on the positive side of the question.

I see this a lot in these polls...the questions are weirdly worded and have a lot of wiggle room :)

I guess it depends on the point you are trying to make. There is only one definite negative answer and the two answers with the largest amount of responses clearly could overlap a bit.

Most importantly tho, is we have a sample pool of lest than 100 people here :)

The questions deliberately overlap. That's why it's a multiple response poll-- people can (and usually do) pick more than one response. There's one item I'd have reworded (I'd have made the "I re-read many books" more strongly worded), but otherwise I think it's quite a reasonable poll for its purpose, which isn't to "prove" anything, but merely to get a sense of how many people who care to express an opinion in this forum re-read books, and for what purpose. You're on firmer ground with the sample criticism, but that limitation is clearly stated at the start of the thread, as well.

I don't want to hijack this thread with an extended debate about poll design, but I don't think it's reasonable to disregard the results with off-hand remarks about the wording. You are, of course, free to construct your own poll (or better yet, a proper survey with a defined population and sampling strategy).

Meanwhile, I stand by my original statement. I think it is quite credible to conclude that many MobileRead participants re-read books. I don't find this particularly surprising. This is a forum about reading, after all.

Talk about the business and some solutions geared toward that, because, quite honestly, no one is going to change philosophical points of view here...this is real clear to me now.

I've already done that... my business model is out there, and working (for me, anyway). What should be discussed is, how to make e-book publishers take the leap of faith into non-DRM'd publishing and prices that the market clearly feels are fair, as well as how to get e-book "pirates" to shop in legitimate sources and abandon "illegally obtained" e-book sources.

Make no mistake, it is a leap of faith that is needed here, as there are no guarantees that this will work for everybody. My method might not work for me, if I was as famous as a Crichton or Rowling, and other authors like King have tried methods that have done them more harm than good. The Baen model might be the most successful here, or maybe Harlequin is doing better, but I don't see other publishers and authors swarming into their camps.

We still need a proven, documented publishing method that anyone can use to get into e-book publishing and thrive. Until we have that, Big Publishers won't be willing to risk their shirts on the vague hopes and empty promises that are represented so vocally on these threads. And they'll keep throwing their books at Amazon and locking them up at high prices.

So: How do we convince publishers and authors to take that leap? And how do we convince buyers to honor it?

So: How do we convince publishers and authors to take that leap? And how do we convince buyers to honor it?

Part of the problem is basically a model where sellers are more concerned with people that DON'T buy things, by definition.

The hand-wringing over "but...but...someone that didn't pay for it will HAVE IT" is so ridiculous on a practical level it is really, really laughable.

It cannot be avoided. I mean JKR's books are all over the Internet. There are millions of potential editors out there perfecting any imperfections.

Someone told me they saw a version of book 7 in eBook format that even had the chapter headings in the book's typeface.

Bloomsbury nor JKR get a *dime*...not one penny.

From a business point of view, its fairly obvious that this is a product in demand.

Its is also painfully obvious to anyone that is looking that it doesn't matter if the publishers release these books. They will happen. They get no revenue.

If to them, its an all or nothing proposition, then its not going to happen. The reality tho is that it doesn't really matter. Publishers really have nothing to gain by not releasing popular books as eBook...drm free or not. They happen anyway.

The more valuable the "property" is (I mean brand in this instance) the more high quality the bootleg becomes, over time.

The idea really should be to nip this in the bud, short-circuiting the "darknet" process. Instead, they seem to believe they will be accelerating it, when the reality of the situation clearly indicates that either way, it exists.

As far as pricing goes, I think the $9.99 price point that amazon has is one that is workable...assuming publishers can add a bit more value for the money.

The Amazon problem is a simple one. There is no way to read your book on anything but a kindle...not even a PC.

If Amazon wants the Kindle to by the "iPod of eBooks" they would be better served by actually following Apple's model instead of the models used by all of the competitors they have laid waste to.

1. Anything you buy from Apple can be played on as many iPods as you own.

2. Any digital music you buy can be burned onto a CD which can be played on any cd player, anywhere

3. Any music that you buy that is "DRM Free" is still identified as being yours ; it is stamped with your account information

4. The system gives a feeling of actually *owning* what you buy. It does not feel "temporary" or "etherial"

5. The Price/Selection/Quality ratio makes it effectively better than "free" for those that are buyers

No other digital music solution currently offers this full package of benefits.

The current, and soon to be eclipsed leader in eBooks doesn't offer anywhere near the value and freedom to buyers that the iTMS does. It is neither "better than free" nor "competitive to Brick and Mortar" so there is no way they can thrive next to either.

How can this be fixed? I think what people are calling "social drm" is a good step (this allows for more "playback" options and helps honest people stay that way), the $9.99 Amazon price (tho I think $7.99 would be the "killer price point"), and the addition of allowing buyers to print one copy of the book (paralleling the m4a -> cd that Apple does).

How to convince publishers?

Well the same thing that is enraging them should be more than enough to convince them: they don't make a dime off eBooks traded on the internet.

You may hate or love the pirates, the fact is that music, movies and book publishers are in competition with the pirates. It's obvious that this is not a fair competition, but let's face it, there is no other competition. If you are a sole provider of the content, you can only be in competition with your self. And this a main problem in my opinion -- why would you want to sell your materials in digital content, if you don't have to? JKR has decided not to publish her works digital, because there is no reason for her to do so (for now). So, in this sense, pirates maybe doing a general public a favour in a long turn. They are fixing a problem, albeit in the illegal way.

Where do I see the solution? Like so many others have pointed out here, the PRICE and SERVICE. When content will be so cheap and so easy available, 99% of the people will not even bother to look for the free/pirated content.

The price part is all simple economics: you can sell in small volumes with high prices, or you sell cheap in high volumes, the outcome is the same, or even better for the latter. It's this point that publishers have to realize: sell a lot and cheap! Newspapers have already realized this, and are aware that they will even have to provide content for free, and make a profit in side services.

So, publishers, get of your butts, and start to compete!

The idea really should be to nip this in the bud, short-circuiting the "darknet" process. Instead, they seem to believe they will be accelerating it, when the reality of the situation clearly indicates that either way, it exists.

As far as pricing goes, I think the $9.99 price point that amazon has is one that is workable...assuming publishers can add a bit more value for the money.

"Value-added" e-books is a common suggestion... but what brings added value to an e-book? This is something that has been less than clearly laid out in the past. Perhaps some suggestions would be in order here (by anybody).

If Amazon wants the Kindle to by the "iPod of eBooks" they would be better served by actually following Apple's model instead of the models used by all of the competitors they have laid waste to...

For Amazon to have been able to satisfy these points, they wouldn't have needed the Kindle at all. They could have simply sold the e-books by these guidelines, and let people read them on whatever they had. Considering how forward Amazon has been regarding their selling program, I suspect it was the publishers that pretty much forced them to tack a piece of hardware onto their e-book system, in order to get the publishers' cooperation.

How to convince publishers?

Well the same thing that is enraging them should be more than enough to convince them: they don't make a dime off eBooks traded on the internet.

Fine, but if they believe the amount they will spend to produce an e-book line will not net them a profit, they won't bother.

Value-add for ebooks probably deserves its own thread, but I'll offer a few suggestions:

- Excerpts from other books by the same author or publisher
- Interviews with the author
- Audio files of the author reading an excerpt
- Scans of notes, maps, sketches, photos or other prep material the author accumulated while writing the book (this part of Rowling's website, for example, is extremely popular)
- Character indices or concordances
- Images of covers used in other countries or for other editions
- Popup map with links on place names throughout the text that take you to the right place on the map (think Children of Hurin)
- Embedded links to online book communities, with functionality possibly similar to DotReader (iLiad or Kindle could easily support this)
- Discount coupons for other books by the same author or publisher

Some of these features would cost the publisher more than others, but most aren't especially expensive or difficult to create. Much of this material already exists somewhere, and would just need to be located and/or converted to an appropriate format for inclusion.

I would like to have character names be links to where they are introduced.

Alrighty...let's DO THIS! Go here (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17420).

"Value-added" e-books is a common suggestion... but what brings added value to an e-book? This is something that has been less than clearly laid out in the past. Perhaps some suggestions would be in order here (by anybody).


"How can this be fixed? I think what people are calling "social drm" is a good step (this allows for more "playback" options and helps honest people stay that way), the $9.99 Amazon price (tho I think $7.99 would be the "killer price point"), and the addition of allowing buyers to print one copy of the book (paralleling the m4a -> cd that Apple does)."

Anyway, I started another thread for this :)

I have only occasionally bought an e-book and I 'pirate' quite a lot of them, but then again on an avarage month I buy 20 books. Most of the time I also purchase real copies of the e-books I read. So I have to say that I don't think e-book piracy is that big of a problem. Not yet anyway, but in the future, who knows.

"How can this be fixed? I think what people are calling "social drm" is a good step (this allows for more "playback" options and helps honest people stay that way), the $9.99 Amazon price (tho I think $7.99 would be the "killer price point"), and the addition of allowing buyers to print one copy of the book (paralleling the m4a -> cd that Apple does)."


Don't overlook the fact that most of us have seen a dramatic fall in the price of eBooks (which most stores sell in US$) due to the fact that the value of the US$ has fallen through the floor in the last year compared to most other currencies. Eg, for many years, the £:$ exchange rate was about £1 = $1.60; today it's £1 = $2. That means that anything priced in US$ is now 25% cheaper than it used to be.

I've already done that... my business model is out there, and working (for me, anyway). What should be discussed is, how to make e-book publishers take the leap of faith into non-DRM'd publishing and prices that the market clearly feels are fair, as well as how to get e-book "pirates" to shop in legitimate sources and abandon "illegally obtained" e-book sources.
Most pirated ebooks are actually books that are not legally available as ebooks. So the answer to that is to publish ALL new books as ebooks and that would stop most of the problems.

Most pirated ebooks are actually books that are not legally available as ebooks. So the answer to that is to publish ALL new books as ebooks and that would stop most of the problems.

Once again, Jon, you propose sweeping, simplistic and rational solutions to complex, vague and highly litigitous issues. STOP DOING THAT!!! You KNOW the Publishing Industry is Always Right and the Customer is Always Wrong! :D :D :D

Derek

Most pirated ebooks are actually books that are not legally available as ebooks. So the answer to that is to publish ALL new books as ebooks and that would stop most of the problems.

Let me propose a question. When Harry Potter 7 was released, we saw a lot of people on this forum piously proclaim that of course the only reason they were reading a illegal copy of this book was that it wasn't available as an legal e-Book.

Suppose Ms. Rowling were to have a change of heart and permit all 7 HP books to be released as e-Books. What proportion of the people who have illegal copies of them do you believe would buy the legal versions?

Suppose Ms. Rowling were to have a change of heart and permit all 7 HP books to be released as e-Books. What proportion of the people who have illegal copies of them do you believe would buy the legal versions?

If you consider books like food, that is something you read and throw away why should you buy a new book of something you already have read?

If you consider books like food, that is something you read and throw away why should you buy a new book of something you already have read?

Sure, but a lot of people consider books to be something to keep, and re-read later... if they're good. Many of those would conceivably want to buy a legitimate e-book, especially if it was better formatted and edited than a pirated copy, or if it included some added value, like pictures or glossaries, etc. (Whether a Rowling book is worth keeping, by that reckoning, is up to you.)

Jon, not that I'm questioning you, but is there any substantiated evidence of your suggestion? Having a source of evidence wouldn't hurt. For the publishers, though, I believe it's simply a lack of desire to spend the extra time (and money) to convert e-books, without a reliable expectation of return on investment, that is keeping them out of the market. So, even though there is piracy that they could nip in the bud with their own legit e-books, they don't consider it worth the investment to them to do so. Maybe success in the Kindle market will change that opinion.

Let me propose a question. When Harry Potter 7 was released, we saw a lot of people on this forum piously proclaim that of course the only reason they were reading a illegal copy of this book was that it wasn't available as an legal e-Book.

Suppose Ms. Rowling were to have a change of heart and permit all 7 HP books to be released as e-Books. What proportion of the people who have illegal copies of them do you believe would buy the legal versions?
To be honest, I don't see all that many people going out and purchasing a electronic copy should a legal copy be available. But I can see people purchasing a legal copy should one have been released at the time the pbook was released.

Once the money is spent on the pbook, a lot of people don't think twice about owning the ebook. They thing that "I've paid for the content so why pay twice". But if the ebook comes out at the same time as the pbook, then people have a choice as to which to purchase. There are some books I might purchase as pbooks and some I'd purchase as ebooks. But I would have the choice to make.

A lot of the ebooks available on the darknet are books that were/are not legally available in electronic form. The need for people to scan ebooks would greatly diminish if the books were already available.

Sure, but a lot of people consider books to be something to keep, and re-read later... if they're good. Many of those would conceivably want to buy a legitimate e-book, especially if it was better formatted and edited than a pirated copy, or if it included some added value, like pictures or glossaries, etc. (Whether a Rowling book is worth keeping, by that reckoning, is up to you.)


Sure, I re-read a lot of books. I just wanted to point out that the question was maybe a bit misleading. I think the availability factor is important. Some books you need to read a a certain time to participate in the discussion of the book. So in a sense there i a timedependent experience that you can miss.

And some books as for exemple price nominated books you might loose the interest to read after the voting if the books are bad.

For TV series and if you not live in the US and want to watch them without having seen spoilers and or if you want to participate in forums about the series you have to download them in any way they are available.

Hopefully, as we become more of a "global village," some of these geography-restricted factors and time-dependent factors might be removed, and that will help remove the "need" to pirate e-books for people who presently have limited access to the same books. (If it happens, dealing with global price and copyright differentials will have to be addressed next.)

To be honest, I don't see all that many people going out and purchasing a electronic copy should a legal copy be available. But I can see people purchasing a legal copy should one have been released at the time the pbook was released.

Once the money is spent on the pbook, a lot of people don't think twice about owning the ebook. They thing that "I've paid for the content so why pay twice". But if the ebook comes out at the same time as the pbook, then people have a choice as to which to purchase. There are some books I might purchase as pbooks and some I'd purchase as ebooks. But I would have the choice to make.

A lot of the ebooks available on the darknet are books that were/are not legally available in electronic form. The need for people to scan ebooks would greatly diminish if the books were already available.

Not buying the content twice opens the door for an interesting marketing model. You always sell the pbook and throw in the ebook. The addition of DRM is ok since you always have the pbook to fall back on. Perhaps you order the pbook and then pre-download the ebook.

Dale

Not buying the content twice opens the door for an interesting marketing model. You always sell the pbook and throw in the ebook. The addition of DRM is ok since you always have the pbook to fall back on. Perhaps you order the pbook and then pre-download the ebook.

Although I don't see this as a bad model, the only issue related to this that I see (from a publisher's standpoint) is that the p-book will be considered to be of less value if the user also gets an e-book. Also, the p-book can be resold, etc, immediately after you buy it and download the e-book... publishers will hate the implications of that.

Result: Publishers will surely raise the price of the p-book/e-book combination, possibly even doubling the p-book cost.

Suppose Ms. Rowling were to have a change of heart and permit all 7 HP books to be released as e-Books. What proportion of the people who have illegal copies of them do you believe would buy the legal versions?
I already have legal versions.

But if you mean legal ebook versions, it would depend on the cost. I have most of mine in hardcover, and three of those in Canadian editions printed on recycled paper, which I paid extra for. If I could cover the cost of the ebooks by selling my pbooks secondhand, I might do it. They do take up a lot of shelf space, as big as they are, and though I re-read them occasionally, I'm the only one in the family who does, so they might as well be ebooks.

Not in locked formats, though.

Suppose Ms. Rowling were to have a change of heart and permit all 7 HP books to be released as e-Books. What proportion of the people who have illegal copies of them do you believe would buy the legal versions?

I think the very nature of people who would download an illegal copy of an e-book in the first place would, in most cases, preclude them from feeling they need to pay for a legal version later. In other words, most of them will find some way to rationalize a reason to not bother, just as they rationalized a reason for knowingly taking the illegal e-book.

There have also been comments as to how some reason that possessing the printed book means they have a right to a free e-book (and, by extension, possessing a hardback gives them a right to a free paperback. I'm still trying to figure out that one.).

Let me propose a question. When Harry Potter 7 was released, we saw a lot of people on this forum piously proclaim that of course the only reason they were reading a illegal copy of this book was that it wasn't available as an legal e-Book.

Suppose Ms. Rowling were to have a change of heart and permit all 7 HP books to be released as e-Books. What proportion of the people who have illegal copies of them do you believe would buy the legal versions?

*raises hand*

Nicely formatted digital versions without all the OCR errors? Yes please. I'll keep my hardback copies, too. Most real Potterheads I know own multiple copies of all seven novels--hardback, paperback, British editions, adult editions, audiobooks, etc. I used to want the British "adult editions" but I think now I'd rather have the digital editions.

Suppose Ms. Rowling were to have a change of heart and permit all 7 HP books to be released as e-Books. What proportion of the people who have illegal copies of them do you believe would buy the legal versions?

Doesn't that assume the people with the illegal copies would agree the legit copies were worth the asking price?
HP7 wasn't worth what I paid for it :angry:.

Doesn't that assume the people with the illegal copies would agree the legit copies were worth the asking price?
HP7 wasn't worth what I paid for it :angry:.

Everyone takes that risk when they buy something... it's called "buyer beware," and it means don't take the advertising at face value, or prepare to be disappointed.

You can return some things that disappoint and get a refund. Others you can resell, and at least recover some of what you spent. But either way, your only weapon is to check things out before you buy, so you won't get burned.

Want to make absolutely sure you won't get burned? Don't buy it.

Given the sales of the HP books, I suspect most of the people who have unauthorized ebooks have already paid for the pbooks.

...your only weapon is to check things out before you buy, so you won't get burned.

You can often only check books out to a limited extent before you buy them.
If I'm charged £9.99 for a book that's only worth £4.50 - I've had £5.49 stolen from me by deception (it may be legalised theft, that I just have to put up with; but it's theft just the same).

Want to make absolutely sure you won't get burned? Don't buy it.

You could equally say - want to make absolutely sure you won't get pirated? Don't publish it.
Whether we consume or produce, it's our decision - no-one is forcing us to be either.

Given the sales of the HP books, I suspect most of the people who have unauthorized ebooks have already paid for the pbooks.

That's a complete "red herring". You're not suggesting that buying a paper book should entitle you to a "free" eBook, are you? Do you expect a free paperback when you buy a hardback? :)

That's a complete "red herring". You're not suggesting that buying a paper book should entitle you to a "free" eBook, are you? Do you expect a free paperback when you buy a hardback? :)

I think he means that people who paid for their pbooks already read HP. What is a point of buying ebooks now?

I think he means that people who paid for their pbooks already read HP. What is a point of buying ebooks now?

Many of the people who downloaded the illegal eBook were quite happy to do so, on the grounds that "they COULDN'T buy a legal eBook". Presumably those with some sense of morals would be happy to buy the eBook legally, should it become available. The idea that having bought the paper book should somehow "let you off" paying for the eBook I find somewhat bizarre, personally.

Many of the people who downloaded the illegal eBook were quite happy to do so, on the grounds that "they COULDN'T buy a legal eBook". Presumably those with some sense of morals would be happy to buy the eBook legally, should it become available. The idea that having bought the paper book should somehow "let you off" paying for the eBook I find somewhat bizarre, personally.

Could buy the eBook at the time. The situations are not identical so why assume it? What people find bizarre is just a matter of taste.

Could buy the eBook at the time. The situations are not identical so why assume it? What people find bizarre is just a matter of taste.

Sorry Tommy, but you COULDN'T - and still can't - buy a "legal" Harry Potter eBook. Ms. Rowling refuses to allow their release as eBooks.

Sorry Tommy, but you COULDN'T - and still can't - buy a "legal" Harry Potter eBook. Ms. Rowling refuses to allow their release as eBooks.

Yes, and? We were talking about a hypothetical case here. The point was that just because you at one poiint in time wanted to buy en eBook does not mean that you want to buy it at another point in time. So your argument was not correct.

Yes, and? We were talking about a hypothetical case here. The point was that just because you at one poiint in time wanted to buy en eBook does not mean that you want to buy it at another point in time. So your argument was not correct.

Whether you WANT to buy it now is, IMHO, of no importance. If you justified your illegal download of a book at the time on the grounds that you couldn't buy that book legally then you are - to my mind - morally obliged to buy it if it DOES subsequently appear on the legal market. To act otherwise is, to my way of thinking, wrong.

Whether you WANT to buy it now is, IMHO, of no importance. If you justified your illegal download of a book at the time on the grounds that you couldn't buy that book legally then you are - to my mind - morally obliged to buy it if it DOES subsequently appear on the legal market. To act otherwise is, to my way of thinking, wrong.

Yes, but that you are thinking so is not an argument for that it is so. Why do you not have a time factor in your analysis? Why are you incurring some moral debt to do something at a future timepoint when according to you the first action was morally wrong anyway?

And why should you buy the eBook version? Why not send money to the author directly and not bother with a future eBook version? Why are you not morally required according to you to send money directly to the author?

Yes, but that you are thinking so is not an argument for that it is so. Why do you not have a time factor in your analysis? Why are you incurring some moral debt to do something at a future timepoint when according to you the first action was morally wrong anyway?

And why should you buy the eBook version? Why not send money to the author directly and not bother with a future eBook version? Why are you not morally required according to you to send money directly to the author?

This is not my argument as such - it was the justification posted by many people here in July when the final HP book was released. I would have thought personally that anyone who DID use that argument WOULD feel obliged to buy the eBook should it be subsequently released, but perhaps not everyone shares my view of "how the world should be".

Why not send money to the author directly? Because a book is not only the results of the author's work. All sorts of people are involved in the production and sale of a successful book, from the publisher to the distributor. All deserve their share of the income from a sale. Many people here seem to be of the opinion that publishers are the "bad guys" in the book world, taking the lion's share of the income and doing little or nothing for it. I suspect that these people have never had a book published, and don't realise how much work the publisher does.

But they cannot deserve their share from a sale if they are not actually selling the product. I do not really see how you are morally required to pay to somebody that potentially can make a product available. I said the author because I assumed ha had the rights but maybe it is the publisher or somebody else. But my point is that it seems very arbitrary to argue that to buy the eBook if it becomes available is the right thing to do. I think the argument that if people are not making the product available they are losing the sale is as convincing. Or that the right thing is to privately pay the person or entity having the rights to publish the thing. And so on.

Whether you WANT to buy it now is, IMHO, of no importance. If you justified your illegal download of a book at the time on the grounds that you couldn't buy that book legally then you are - to my mind - morally obliged to buy it if it DOES subsequently appear on the legal market. To act otherwise is, to my way of thinking, wrong.

I disagree with you, although I do agree with the next line:

The idea that having bought the paper book should somehow "let you off" paying for the eBook I find somewhat bizarre, personally.

(I would like to emphesize that we are speaking about moral issues not legality atm)

If at the moment of buying a person had a choice to buy ebook or pbook and this person has chosen pbook - there is no excuse for downloading ebook from darknet. IMHO.
However, if at the time of purchasing there was no choice and a person who could download the ebook from the darknet for free, bought the pbook anyway, there is no moral issue if the person refuses to buy ebook in a some distant future.

Just because whoever published the book was being stubborn and stupid and refused to accept the reality of modern world it would not mean that customers should be ripped off. Mind you, we are speaking about right now. It is not about a book that was published 15-20 years ago when there was no such thing as ebook. It is about now when someone is being plain stupid or lets be more PC and say shortsighted. Though the reality of business is quite simple. Either you are being smart and you know what your customers need and you succeed otherwise..... your fail. Businessworld is an unforgiveable beast.

That's a complete "red herring". You're not suggesting that buying a paper book should entitle you to a "free" eBook, are you? Do you expect a free paperback when you buy a hardback? :)
HarryT, you and I have discussed this several times before. You know that I believe that once you've paid for a license for the content, you've paid. I know that you disagree (and in the UK, the laws would seem to agree with you, whereas in the US, where I live, the situation is far less clear and various forms of content shifting have been judged to be legal in the past).

I know you don't agree with me. You know I don't agree with you. Why post as if we haven't had this discussion before? I start to feel as though there's no point saying anything to you at all. I don't expect you to agree with me, but it would be nice if you'd at least acknowledge that you're aware of my point of view.

I know you don't agree with me. You know I don't agree with you. Why post as if we haven't had this discussion before? I start to feel as though there's no point saying anything to you at all. I don't expect you to agree with me, but it would be nice if you'd at least acknowledge that you're aware of my point of view.

I am aware of your viewpoint, but I think that it's both morally and legally wrong. I can always hope to persuade you of the error of your ways in time :).

I am aware of your viewpoint, but I think that it's both morally and legally wrong. I can always hope to persuade you of the error of your ways in time :).
I'm quite capable of changing my mind, but pretending you haven't heard what I've already said isn't going to do it. Persistently repeating the same arguments isn't going to do it, either. (Suggesting that I think I'm entitled to a hardcover book because I own an ebook does both.)

If you'd really like to change my mind, come up with a new way of explaining your point of view. There's not much point in debating the legal issues, as we live in different countries with quite different legal perspectives on this issue. But if you want to discuss morality, I'm still listening. You might, for example, start by considering whether there are any circumstances whatsoever in which it would be acceptable to receive a book from someone else without paying for it. Perhaps if we can define both ends of the moral spectrum it will be possible to find some common middle ground.

If, on the other hand, you're not interested in finding common middle ground or seeing if perhaps in some ways you might be overstating your position, just as I might be, then there's no point in further discussion on this subject, and it might be better if we each simply ignore each other's posts in this area.

If, on the other hand, you're not interested in finding common middle ground or seeing if perhaps in some ways you might be overstating your position, just as I might be, then there's no point in further discussion on this subject, and it might be better if we each simply ignore each other's posts in this area.
Is there any point at all to copyright violation threads? The same things are said, over and over and over, and people don't change their minds. The worldviews don't overlap enough to permit significant conversation. Even when conversation stays polite, it's pretty much mired at the "I don't understand how anyone can think that" level.

If you'd really like to change my mind, come up with a new way of explaining your point of view. There's not much point in debating the legal issues, as we live in different countries with quite different legal perspectives on this issue. But if you want to discuss morality, I'm still listening. You might, for example, start by considering whether there are any circumstances whatsoever in which it would be acceptable to receive a book from someone else without paying for it. Perhaps if we can define both ends of the moral spectrum it will be possible to find some common middle ground.


OK, let me have one more go at it.

I have no problem whatsoever with you personally scanning a paperback book which you own, since you tell me that this is perfectly legal where you live.

HOWEVER, this is NOT the same as downloading an illegal copy of that book from the internet, from either a legal or a moral perspective, because that uploaded book is illegal. It can never be legal to download illegal material. This is true even if the end result is identical.

To use an example I've used before; I could buy two identical bottles of Bell's Whisky; one of which comes from my local supermarket, and the other of which has been smuggled from France without the payment of UK duty. Although the two are identical, I am breaking the law in buying the smuggled bottle, but not the one from my supermarket. It is the source of the product which makes it illegal, not whether or not I am "entitled" to own that product.

HOWEVER, this is NOT the same as downloading an illegal copy of that book from the internet, from either a legal or a moral perspective, because that uploaded book is illegal. It can never be legal to download illegal material. This is true even if the end result is identical.


That is wrong or maybe the corrext objection is that the material is not illegal. It is making the material available that is an illegal act but the material in itself is not illegal.

As i have said before. A couple of years ago in Sweden it was legal to download whatever you wanted but it could be illegal to upload the same material. As i understand it the laws are still that way in Switzerland.

HOWEVER, this is NOT the same as downloading an illegal copy of that book from the internet, from either a legal or a moral perspective, because that uploaded book is illegal. It can never be legal to download illegal material. This is true even if the end result is identical.
Ok, I see your point about not supporting a system which broadcasts works illegally.

Suppose I get a scan from a friend who has the book and has verified that I also have the book?

Suppose I form a club with a bunch of Heinlein completists-- we all have all of Heinlein's books, only 3 of which are available as legal ebooks-- and we each scan one and then we share the results with one another? (We'll leave out for the moment that Robert Heinlein is dead, as Virginia Heinlein is still alive and well liked by the fans-- we're happy to support her.)

I'm not trying to use this to justify the darknet as it exists currently, I'm just trying to understand where you think the bounds of fairness lie.

I'm not trying to use this to justify the darknet as it exists currently, I'm just trying to understand where you think the bounds of fairness lie.

The unfairness lies in the act of posting the book to the internet where it can be downloaded by people who have no legitimate claim to it.

The unfairness lies in the act of posting the book to the internet where it can be downloaded by people who have no legitimate claim to it.
So if I only share a scan with people that I have verified own the paper book? Or if I request a copy of a scan from someone who asks for verification that I own the paper book?

So if I only share a scan with people that I have verified own the paper book? Or if I request a copy of a scan from someone who asks for verification that I own the paper book?

I would have no particular MORAL issue with that. Whether or not it's LEGAL in your country I wouldn't know.

I would have no particular MORAL issue with that. Whether or not it's LEGAL in your country I wouldn't know.
I don't think anyone knows whether it's legal here, but I'd have a hard time imagining a jury convicting anyone for doing it. Unfortunately, forming a club to exchange books this way would very likely attract a legal challenge, and even if the court decided in favor of the defendants, the costs of the defense would be prohibitive.

Thanks, that helps me to understand your point of view. I am less concerned about filesharing of books on the darknet than you are, because I really do think most books being shared are either out of print or manual scans of content not available as ebooks, and because I think most people who download them are either hoarding without reading or do pay for their content by buying paper books or commercial ebooks, but I see your point that the system makes no attempt to verify this, and is inherently unfair to content creators because of this, and that using such a system is participating in this unfairness.

Is there any point at all to copyright violation threads? The same things are said, over and over and over, and people don't change their minds. The worldviews don't overlap enough to permit significant conversation. Even when conversation stays polite, it's pretty much mired at the "I don't understand how anyone can think that" level.
I think HarryT and I are trying to show that it is possible to find overlap in our worldviews, and that it can be possible for this conversation to be constructive. I certainly appreciate his continued efforts in this regard.

Unfortunately, I find I have to ignore most of the other posts in threads on this topic, because most people do just keep repeating the same arguments, louder and louder, talking past each other as it were. That gets us nowhere.